home

Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies

By TChris, Section War on Terror
Posted on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 12:29:54 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

If you need to be on time to your destination and you plan to fly, think about leaving a few days early. In this month of unwarranted panic, it's become common to hear about flights that return home, or land at the wrong destination, to investigate perceived threats.

Flights have been disturbed three times (so far) just today (update: there have been six reported incidents today) (second update: seven):

  • A flight from England to Chicago was diverted to Bangor, Maine today to investigate a (so far unspecified) "security concern."
  • A flight from Phoenix to North Carolina landed in Oklahoma City after "some kind of altercation between the passenger and a flight attendant." An air marshall subdued the passenger.

Yesterday, a flight from New Hampshire to North Carolina made an emergency landing in Boston because of a bad smell. And these, of course, are only the most recent examples.

The Aviation and Travel Industry News blog asks these questions:

We ask again - how much longer can the airline industry take this? How much more can the traveling public handle? These stories are like water torture - each one another drip, driving everyone crazy. These little drips are reducing the attraction of air travel. Its not looking good.

Indeed, it's not. Most flights make it to their destinations more or less on time, but the fear that a flight might be diverted has to make passengers ponder whether this is the right time to engage in any air travel that isn't critical.

< Cop's Drug Dog Dies From Neglect | New Survivor Show to Divide Contestants by Races >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies | 29 comments (29 topical)
    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#1)
    by Joe Bob on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 12:59:00 PM EST
    Remember what the hot topic in aviation was before 9/11? A Passengers Bill of Rights. The service was so bad that there was actually talk of Congressional legislation on the issue. Strip away all of the new and different security measures and nothing is fundamentally different. So, it should be no surprise that there is no deep reservoir of good will towards the airline industry on the part of the traveling public.

    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 01:14:22 PM EST
    My favorite story about a flight being diverted was an AirTrans flight from Atlanta to Boston. The flight was diverted because they found a water bottle and a there was a questionable odor on board. The odor was caused by the turkey dinner they were serving at the time. Not sure if this is the first time that a turkey dinner diverted a flight or not, but it certainly could be. The local news reported it on Wednesday so it must have been Tuesday evening.

    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 01:50:05 PM EST
    "In this month of unwarranted panic" you say. So the British and Pakistani governments arrests were 'unwarranted'? How can you be so sure? Can only imagine how bad that turkey dinner smelled. If it was that bad to smell you can only wonder how good it was eat!

    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#4)
    by eric on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 01:58:37 PM EST
    And then there's the flight from Amsterdam to India that got escorted back by fighter jets because some guys apparently had cell phones. Yep, you guessed it, they were all released today with no charges. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1924346.cms It's a good thing the Dutch had them, in the US they'd be screwed.

    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#5)
    by Lis Riba on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 03:14:38 PM EST
    Don't forget the Canadian flight that was disrupted last week because somebody's ipod fell off his belt in the bathroom...

    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#6)
    by profmarcus on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 03:22:22 PM EST
    i have flown much more often than i even care to think about... over a 6 year period several years ago, i used to collect boarding pass stubs and i had 4 stacks, all of them at least 4 inches high... (why did i do this...? god only knows...) anyway, i absolutely refuse to allow myself to be jerked around by this ridiculous manipulation of our fears... it's manufactured, pure and simple and i ain't buyin' it... And, yes, I DO take it personally

    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 04:38:32 PM EST
    JL: I fly Airtran about 8 times a month. They don't serve food on the flights, unless you count pretzels. A turkey dinner woudl be a first.

    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#8)
    by John Mann on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 04:39:22 PM EST
    A flight from Phoenix to North Carolina landed in Oklahoma City after "some kind of altercation between the passenger and a flight attendant." An air marshall subdued the passenger.
    Heh. Anger Management.

    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#9)
    by Punchy on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 04:43:00 PM EST
    Don't forget the Canadian flight that was disrupted last week because somebody's ipod fell off his belt in the bathroom... Do you have a link to this story? This sounds obscenely ridiculous....

    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#10)
    by Al on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 05:36:13 PM EST
    And remember, whatever you do, don't get down and pray either, if you don't want to get kicked off the plane.

    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#11)
    by Al on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 05:42:07 PM EST
    "In this month of unwarranted panic" you say. So the British and Pakistani governments arrests were 'unwarranted'? How can you be so sure? (bocajeff)
    Dude, it's the panic that's unwarranted. As the president of RyanAir said, we're not about to be attacked by toiletries. Nobody said anything about the arrests. Although, since you asked, there are some doubts about those arrests.

    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 06:14:55 PM EST
    Al - The only panic I've seen has been the Left over having another radical Moslem terrorist plot detected.

    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 06:23:31 PM EST
    Wile the flight from Atlanta to Boston was diverted to Charlotte Tuesday night because of the water bottle and odor. I'm pretty sure that it was the noon newscast on Wednesday the NBC Atlanta station that reported it and I thought they said Air Trans. They were clear that the odor was traced to the turkey dinner that was being served. The 11 alive web site didn't have a way to research it though.

    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#14)
    by Sailor on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 07:37:37 PM EST
    ppj doesn't think flight being diverted and passengers being arrested, detaind and then released with no charges and fighter escorts are panic. Yet somehow the left is panicking. Provide links ppj! Come right out with it ppj, you just implied all of us are traitors ... again. Be a man, step up and write it out loud.

    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 26, 2006 at 09:28:12 AM EST
    Sailor - Links? Read this thread. Remember the comment was about the "Left" not the airlines/security people. BTW - Let me give you some words to live by:
    If the pilot doesn't want to fly it, I don't want to ride it.
    And then we had this, which I see wasn't put in the post:
    HOUSTON (Aug. 26) - U.S. and Argentine authorities were investigating how a stick of dynamite in a college student's checked luggage ended up on a Houston-bound flight, one of seven security incidents that disrupted U.S. flights in a day... The dynamite was discovered during a baggage search in an inspection station at Bush Intercontinental Airport shortly after Continental Airlines Flight 52 from Argentina landed early Friday.
    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#16)
    by Bill Arnett on Sat Aug 26, 2006 at 12:13:22 PM EST
    Let's see now, at last report only ten of the 24 people arrested have been charged in the London plane bombing arrest, three have been released without charges, there is still no evidence that the planning had been completed, a test run set up, tickets purchased, or passports having been obtained. This is falling apart faster than a speeding bullet or a terror bust by Abu Gonzales or John Ashcroft. bush pushed the Brits to bust this up prematurely, i.e., before they could even prove they had the evidence sufficient to indict the 24 arrested. "Al - The only panic I've seen has been the Left over having another radical Moslem terrorist plot detected." ppj Incorrigible. Why, this will probably rate right up there with the Miami Six, Jose Padilla and the dirty bomb, and the idiot who was going to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch. And what happened to the idiots who were plotting to blow up apartment complexes and shopping malls a few months back? The terrorist attacks on NY subways? The false scare of plots to blow up our financial institutions? The plane diverted to Canada and three people whose names were on the terrorist watch list returned to England (One of them a five year-old boy!)? Man, all these terrorists attacks scare me spitless. How...terrifying! Which of these scared you the worst, ppj?

    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 26, 2006 at 01:10:13 PM EST
    Bill - So only 10 have been charged? Wow. Now that certainly makes me feel better. You know, whether you realize it or not, comments such as those make it appear that you are more concerned with bashing Bush than catching terrorists. Now I know you are going to stand up and declare your patroitism, but I mean, really. Don't you think that just once in a while you could muster an attaboy for those folks trying to protect us? I mean, wouldn't that have made you feel better when you were trying to do that?

    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#18)
    by Patrick on Sat Aug 26, 2006 at 03:39:14 PM EST
    Well I just got back, flying from SFO to Dulles to Heathrow to Shannon and back again. I went through security a bunch of times, but had easily the best flying experience I've had in years. Except for the gawd awful sinus pain I get when we descend. I wonder how many of these incidents would have happened anyway without news coverage but for the current events. With the exception of the flight from London to D.C. with the hysterical women, it seems they've all been handled appropriately from what I've heard. The United flight seemed a bit over the top. I was watching the coverage from Heathrow as it happened. I flew out of Shannon the morning of the bomb threat it was business as usual with no delays...Even got my bags to arrive with me at SFO. Now that's impressive. Nowhere did I experience "Unfriendly" skies. T-Chris, how many flights have you taken this month?

    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#19)
    by roy on Sat Aug 26, 2006 at 04:05:31 PM EST
    I've been flying recently too. Only real trouble has been weather. Security folks have been quick & polite. However, after reading about all these security incidents in the paper, my mom tried to get me to let her drive me home instead of flying. She'd rather drive eighteen hours than have me fly for three. She's a smart lady, too, so something's wrong with our information if she thinks driving is a better way to travel. But as for these seven flights reflecting paranoia, there are about 28,000 U.S. flights per day (fuzzy math from numbers here), so seven incidents doesn't seem like a lot.

    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#20)
    by Sailor on Sat Aug 26, 2006 at 06:44:29 PM EST
    The federal government has barred two relatives of a Lodi man convicted of supporting terrorists from returning to the country after a lengthy stay in Pakistan, placing the U.S. citizens in an extraordinary legal limbo.
    Muhammad Ismail, a 45-year-old naturalized citizen born in Pakistan, and his 18-year-old son, Jaber Ismail, who was born in the United States, have not been charged with a crime. [...] Federal authorities said Friday that the men, both Lodi residents, would not be allowed back into the country unless they agreed to FBI interrogations in Pakistan.

    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Aug 26, 2006 at 07:13:54 PM EST
    The media is helping the government spread this propaganda hysteria. It will stop once it begins to have a significant effect on business travel, because Corporate interests are always paramount when weighed against public safety (assuming a real threat). As soon as enough silver spoon executives are inconvenienced, Corporations will tell Congress they have had it and the "alert level" will mysteriously be reduced, at least for First Class passengers. LMAO, Fox News has more than half of America believing Shampoo on an airplane is a threat to our way of life. Suits me fine. Airlines have been cramming in more seats and making air travel more and more expensive, inconvenient, and uncomfortable for more than a decade. I pretty much never choose to fly unless it is absolutely necessary. Since nearly all of these wealthy executive idiots are Conservatives, let them disproportionately suffer the expensive, miserable, hot uncomfortable airlines. I'll cruise in my fuel efficient auto anywhere I really want/need to go. Unlike many of you, I don't feel the urge to take my Vacations in exotic locales like Hawaii -- I can eat at McDonald's, stay at a Holiday Inn, watch television, and otherwise enjoy our homogenized materialist corporate culture anywhere my car will take me.

    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 26, 2006 at 08:03:51 PM EST
    Sailor - And what does these two guys have to do with airline travel? Please stay on topic.

    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#23)
    by Sailor on Sat Aug 26, 2006 at 08:19:40 PM EST
    because the less than friendly skies stopped 2 Americans 1/2 thru their travel home to bar 2 Americans who haven't been charged with any crime from flying to America. The skies don't get any unfriendlier than when Americans are barred from their own country. link.

    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 26, 2006 at 09:14:20 PM EST
    Sailor - Huh? The airlines did this? I would say it was the radical Moslem terrorists who caused the problem.. You know, no plots, no nots. Like in, "You are not coming back in unless you can prove you've been visiting Aunt Mohammed.
    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#25)
    by Sailor on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 10:43:45 AM EST
    Once again the concept of being an American escapes ppj.

    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#26)
    by Bill Arnett on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 11:00:44 AM EST
    "You know, whether you realize it or not, comments such as those make it appear that you are more concerned with bashing Bush than catching terrorists. Now I know you are going to stand up and declare your patriotism, but I mean, really. Don't you think that just once in a while you could muster an attaboy for those folks trying to protect us?" ppj Gosh, ppj, thanks for the "I don't give enough credit to bush" reminder: you are right. Terrorist attacks are up four-fold since invading Iraq. Those attacks are killing more people than ever before. Iraq is the finest terrorist recruiting tool ever devised by man, and the training opportunities to teach terrorists how to build bigger and more lethal bombs is unsurpassed. Our intelligence agencies that knew the truth about Iraq were corrupted and co-opted to provide false intel for the Iraq invasion, the intel regarding Lebanon failed to properly asses the situation, and now the agencies are being told by bush's republican guard that they are not producing the "scary, scarier, scariest" reports needed to bomb Iran. Our international reputation has been destroyed, other countries say the greatest to peace is America. Our allies are deserting us and we have zero clout with the U.N. because of the arrogance of this administration. Our country is less safe than ever with our ports, chemical and nuclear plants, and infrastructure less safe than ever. We are now 8.4 TRILLION dollars in debt, and bush has doubled foreign debt by recklessly spending (actually borrowing) more than all former presidents combined. Every child born now owes $80-thousand at birth. The National Debt Clock in Times Square has been shut down because it cannot display the hugh numbers we owe or keep up with our spending per second. Oh, my God! You're right ppj, it IS easy to give credit where credit is due, and bush and his republican guard get ALL the credit for these things. But I do not accept the premise that you are either intelligent enough, know me well enough, or that you are pyschic enough to automatically presume you know how I will reply to something. Patriotism has nothing to do with these things, just common sense. And common sense says (to me) that swearing to engage in "eternal warfare with anyone we even THINK disagrees with us" is the way to keep any nation safe. I think that idea was formerly expressed and dismissed as, "Live by the sword, die by the sword."

    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#27)
    by Bill Arnett on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 11:06:27 AM EST
    please insert "not" between "is" and "the" in the penultimate paragraph as I remain my own worst proofreader.

    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#28)
    by libdevil on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 12:08:44 PM EST
    Gosh, with all this media feeding frenzy over the hideous danger we're in from bottle water, Ipods, and brown people, you'd almost think there was an election coming up.

    Re: Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies (none / 0) (#29)
    by Al on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 12:14:42 PM EST
    My question is can airlines refuse service to passengers based on their clothing? (Patrick)
    That's exactly the right question. The airline's paltry excuse that "the passengers made us do it" is unacceptable. Aubrey, you may want to read what Mr. Jarrar had to say about this incident:
    I grew up and spent all my life living under authoritarian regimes. and i know that these things happen. But I'm shocked that they happened to me here, in the U.S. Especially that I moved from Iraq because of the war that was waged in Iraq under titles like democracy and freedom.
    Flying the Less Than Friendly Skies | 29 comments (29 topical)